Can Science and religion co-exist?

[Whateverist]

My dad is certainly not fucked up and is easily the most intelligent, well-educated person I know, but I think he's suffering cognitive dissonance from his conflicting worldviews.

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is probably the only alternative to a faith-based worldview.

But really there is no necessary conflict. Some Christians think the natural world is a kind of revelation regarding the nature of god. We can disagree about the advisability of reading in something beyond nature at the core of nature, but I don't believe doing so should have to impair your understanding of science. Your father seems like a prime example and Jacob here was another until he decided to chuck the god premiss.

[Minimalist]

The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mother’s milk.
— H L Mencken

[Angrboda]

I don't seem to have any difficulty being both religious and scientifically literate.

Science may conflict with some religious claims, but it's the choice of the individual how to reconcile that dissonance, and I think, in most cases, it is done honestly and conscientiously given the limits and constraints of the person's beliefs and understanding. People often think that if they can't reconcile the religious and the scientific claims from their perspective, anyone else who claims to do so is either a liar or an idiot. I think this fails to acknowledge that if worldviews differ drastically, it's only natural that conclusions based on those worldviews will differ drastically. No dishonesty necessary.

[Faith No More]

But really there is no necessary conflict. Some Christians think the natural world is a kind of revelation regarding the nature of god. We can disagree about the advisability of reading in something beyond nature at the core of nature, but I don't believe doing so should have to impair your understanding of science. Your father seems like a prime example and Jacob here was another until he decided to chuck the god premiss.

I see the conflict in applying the scientifc method to everything but the existence of god. I'm not saying it impairs anyone's ability to understand science. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, it appears impossible to conclude god exists if you truly value the scientific method.

[Lek]

They can co-exist. Science is invaluable for improving our lives and giving us insights into the workings of the universe, but there is no scientific discovery that disproves the existence of God. Science has flourished in civilizations that are highly christian-oriented and many of the greatest scientists have been christians. Yes, science has flourished despite resistance from religion on certain issues, but religion has also flourished despite efforts by the non-religious to wipe it out.

[FreeTony]

Faith and science cannot be USED in conjunction.

That doesn't stop people trying.

[Lek]

But really there is no necessary conflict. Some Christians think the natural world is a kind of revelation regarding the nature of god. We can disagree about the advisability of reading in something beyond nature at the core of nature, but I don't believe doing so should have to impair your understanding of science. Your father seems like a prime example and Jacob here was another until he decided to chuck the god premiss.

I see the conflict in applying the scientifc method to everything but the existence of god. I'm not saying it impairs anyone's ability to understand science. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, it appears impossible to conclude god exists if you truly value the scientific method.

If the scientific method is your only way of determining anything, you probably won't conclude that God exists. The problem is that you're boxing yourself in, setting arbitrary boundaries, and limiting your ability to perceive. You're saying that if science can't prove it, then it's not possible.

[FreeTony]

If the scientific method is your only way of determining anything, you probably won't conclude that God exists.

The problem is that you're boxing yourself in, setting arbitrary boundaries, and limiting your ability to perceive.

You're saying that if science can't prove it, then it's not possible.

1. True
2. I don't consider not believing something until there is evidence to support it a limitation.
3. False - science hadn't proven the existence of the Higgs Boson until very recently. No one said it wasn't possible before that stage.

[Lek]

If the scientific method is your only way of determining anything, you probably won't conclude that God exists.

The problem is that you're boxing yourself in, setting arbitrary boundaries, and limiting your ability to perceive.

You're saying that if science can't prove it, then it's not possible.

1. True
2. I don't consider not believing something until there is evidence to support it a limitation.
3. False - science hadn't proven the existence of the Higgs Boson until very recently. No one said it wasn't possible before that stage.

What I'm saying is that there can be things that are impossible to discover by the scientific method. If you to choose only the scientific method, then you won't be able to discover them. Science cannot prove or disprove supernatural existence. Court cases are often determined not by scientific investigtion, but the testimony of reliable witnesses.

[Minimalist]

What I'm saying is that there can be things that are impossible to discover by the scientific method.

Allegedly.